Soumya Bhattacharya v/s Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors. — Readability Version
Introduction
In a significant ruling emphasizing the consumer-friendly ethos of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that any legal heir or representative of a deceased consumer can institute and maintain a consumer complaint on behalf of the deceased. This decision, delivered in the case of Soumya Bhattacharya v. Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors. in CM(M) 757/2022 & CM APPL. 33618/2022 decided recently on 18.09.2025, underscores the liberal interpretation of the Act’s provisions to ensure access to justice, particularly in cases involving medical negligence or service deficiencies leading to fatal outcomes. The judgment highlights the welfare-oriented nature of the legislation, rejecting narrow interpretations that could bar family members from seeking redressal.
This article delves into the facts, reasoning, and implications of the judgment, while incorporating additional case laws to provide a comprehensive analysis of the locus standi of legal heirs and representatives under the CPA, 1986. By examining precedents from the Supreme Court and various consumer fora, it illustrates how Indian jurisprudence has consistently favored an inclusive approach to protect consumer rights even after the consumer’s demise.
Facts of the Case
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) concerning alleged medical negligence at Apollo Gleneagles Hospital. The complainant’s younger brother, an engineer employed as a General Manager, presented with severe symptoms including multiple black patches on his skin and bleeding. Diagnostic tests revealed critically low platelet counts (17,000/cmm), necessitating immediate hospitalization and platelet transfusion.
According to the complainant, despite the urgency, the hospital delayed admission by over an hour due to demands for advance payment, and failed to promptly administer the required transfusion. Tragically, the patient succumbed to his condition. The complaint was initially filed by the deceased’s brother, who positioned himself as a representative and legal heir, albeit of a “remote degree.” During the proceedings, the deceased’s mother was impleaded as a co-petitioner, but she passed away, leading to further substitutions of legal heirs. The hospital authorities (opposite party) challenged the maintainability of the complaint, arguing that the brother lacked locus standi since Class-I legal heirs (such as the widow, children, and mother) were alive and should have been the primary complainants. They contended that only direct legal heirs could pursue such claims under the CPA, 1986.
Court’s Reasoning and Holding
The Delhi High Court dismissed the hospital’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, upholding the NCDRC’s order that allowed the brother to continue the proceedings. The Court emphasized the benevolent purpose of the CPA, 1986, stating that its provisions must be construed liberally to advance consumer welfare. The court referenced Section 2(1)(b)(v) of the Act, which defines a “complainant” to include, in the case of a deceased consumer, “his legal heir or representative.”
Key Observations from the Judgment Include:
- Broad Interpretation of “Legal Heir” and “Representative”
The terms are not defined restrictively in the Act, and no distinction is made between Class-I and Class-II heirs under personal laws. The court noted that even if the brother was a remote heir, he qualified as a representative, especially as he was not a “stranger or rank outsider.” The impleadment of the mother (a Class-I heir) as a co-petitioner related back to the date of the complaint’s institution, curing any perceived defect. - Irrelevance of Self-Description
Whether the complainant described himself as a “trustee,” “karta,” or “caretaker” was immaterial; the focus was on his familial connection and intent to seek justice for the deceased. - Pendency and Substitutions
The court acknowledged the deaths of the mother and one legal representative during proceedings, reinforcing that substitutions do not invalidate the complaint’s maintainability.
It is pertinent to refer to the case of Spring Meadows Hospital & Ors. v. Harjol Ahluwalia through K.S. Ahluwalia & Ors. (AIR 1998 SC 1801) wherein the Apex Court held thus:
“In the present case, we are concerned with clause (ii) of Section 2(1)(d). In the said clause a consumer would mean a person who hires or avails of the services and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services. When a young child is taken to a hospital by his parents and the child is treated by the doctor, the parents would come within the definition of consumer having hired the services and the young child would also become a consumer under the inclusive definition being a beneficiary of such services. The definition clause being wide enough to include not only the person who hires the services but also the beneficiary of such services which beneficiary is other than the person who hires the services, the conclusion is irresistible that both the parents of the child as well as the child would be consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and as such can claim compensation under the Act.”
Following the dictum of the Apex Court, the High Court reiterated that family members, including parents or siblings, can file complaints on behalf of affected consumers, extending this principle to representatives of deceased individuals. The NCDRC’s directive to implead other heirs was deemed in the interest of justice, though the mother’s prior impleadment rendered it somewhat superfluous. The application was disposed of, allowing the complaint to proceed on merits.
Analysis With Additional Case Laws
The Soumya Bhattacharya ruling aligns with a catena of judgments that advocate for a purposive and expansive reading of the CPA, 1986, to prevent technicalities from defeating consumer rights. Below, we elaborate on this through additional precedents, demonstrating the evolution of jurisprudence on locus standi for legal heirs and representatives.
-
Statutory Foundation: Section 2(1)(b)(v) and Liberal Construction
Section 2(1)(b)(v) explicitly permits legal heirs or representatives to file complaints in cases of a consumer’s death. This provision has been interpreted broadly to include not just immediate heirs but any person with a legitimate interest. In Alpha G184 Owners Association v. Magnum International Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (2023), the Supreme Court reinforced this by holding that the CPA must be construed in a consumer-friendly manner, with the definition of “complainant” being illustrative rather than exhaustive. The court drew from Brigade Enterprises Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Virmani (2022), noting that singular terms like “consumer” encompass plurals, allowing joint or representative filings. This supports the Delhi High Court’s rejection of rigid heir classifications, ensuring that welfare legislation does not succumb to procedural rigidity.
-
Family Members as Representatives: Extending Beyond Heirs
The Supreme Court’s landmark in Spring Meadows Hospital (1998) established that parents could file on behalf of a minor child for medical negligence, emphasizing that the Act allows “any such complaint” by family members. This principle was extended to deceased consumers in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Manjeet Kaur (2022), where the NCDRC held that a legal representative or heir of the deceased can institute a complaint, relying on the settled law that the CPA’s remedial framework permits such actions to address service deficiencies. Similarly, in Punjab National Bank v. K.B. Shetty (1991), the National Commission upheld the locus standi of a husband filing for loss of his wife’s ornaments from a bank locker, treating him as a representative despite the assets belonging to the deceased wife. These cases echo the Soumya Bhattacharya rationale, where the brother’s familial tie sufficed for maintainability.
-
Substitution and Continuation by Heirs
In instances where the original complainant passes away during proceedings, courts have permitted substitutions to prevent abatement. Dr. Narendra Singh Gill v. Amri Devi (Dead) & Ors. (2023) affirmed that legal heirs of a deceased complainant/appellant have the right to implead and continue proceedings under the CPA. This mirrors the Delhi High Court’s handling of multiple deaths and substitutions in Soumya Bhattacharya, ensuring continuity. The Supreme Court in Alpha G184 further clarified that such interpretations align with the Act’s objective of speedy redressal, avoiding repugnant constructions that exclude heirs.
-
Distinguishing Liability of Heirs From Locus to Complain
While heirs can pursue complaints, they are not automatically liable for a deceased’s obligations unless assumed. In Shri Jonathan Langri v. M/s Lyndem Design & Ors. (2017), the NCDRC clarified that legal heirs of a deceased sole proprietor are not liable under the CPA unless they inherit the business, focusing on liability rather than filing rights. This distinction reinforces that the Soumya Bhattacharya ruling pertains solely to the proactive role of heirs in seeking remedies, not imposing burdens. These precedents collectively substantiate the Delhi High Court’s approach, promoting inclusivity and aligning with the CPA’s preamble to protect consumer interests through efficient mechanisms.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Soumya Bhattacharya v. Sudhir Kumar Thakur & Ors. serves as a beacon for interpreting the CPA, 1986, in a manner that prioritizes justice over formalism. By affirming the locus standi of even remote heirs or representatives, it ensures that grievances, such as those arising from medical service deficiencies, do not perish with the consumer. Bolstered by Supreme Court rulings like Spring Meadows, Alpha G184, and Brigade Enterprises, this judgment reinforces the Act’s welfare ethos, encouraging broader access to consumer fora.
For practitioners and consumers alike, it underscores the importance of liberal constructions, potentially reducing barriers in posthumous claims and enhancing accountability in service sectors like healthcare. As consumer laws evolve (noting the 2019 Act’s similar provisions), such rulings will continue to shape a more equitable legal landscape.
Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]
